Delhi Court March 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.K. Kunhi Mohamed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT539
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention in pursuance of an order dated 4th of October, 1989 made by the Government of Kerala under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. It is prayed, inter alia, that a writ of habeas corpus be issued directing the respondents to release the petitioner and set him at liberty forthwith. (2) The order of detention was executed on 20th of October, 1989. The grounds of detention and the documents relied upon were served on the petitioner on 21st of October, 1989. On 9th of November, 1989, the Central Government issued a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act. (3) Counsel for the petitioner has pressed only on ground which is based upon the pleadings in para 21; of the petition. It reads as follows :- 'IT is su...
Mrs. C. P. Gilbert Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Del)222
MS. SUNANDA BHANDARE, J. :This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking interest on refund amount of Rs. 5,000 from 23rd November, 1975 to 2nd July, 1984. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The petitioner was a proprietor of a firm known as Modern Construction company, filed a return of income on 1st January, 1971 declaring a loss of Rs. 13,555. The ITO, District VII (1) did not accept the return and enhanced the figure to Rs. 42,500 vide order dt. 15th March, 1973. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the AAC who confirmed the action of the ITO. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and by order dt. 23rd August, 1975 the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical reasons and remanded back the case to the ITO for reassessment as per the principles laid down in the said order. Thereafter, the ITO reassessed the income vide his order dt. 19th March, 1980 and assessed the income of the petitioner at ...
Shri Lal Chand Bedi and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC64
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment dated 23.8.79 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which it awarded a sum of Rs. 8100/- only as compensation to the appellants who happen to be the parents of Arvind Kumar, the unfortunate boy who died as a result of accident on 27.5.68 at about 8.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Police station Kashmere Gate.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. There are two questions which require to be determined in the present case. One monthly dependency of the claimants and two, the application of a reasonable multiplier. In this case learned Tribunal has held the monthly dependency at Rs. 75/- only. It has also discussed a number of authorities. The latest authority relied upon pertains to the year 1970. Present trend of authorities, however, is different in such cases. In the case of Subash Rani and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1987 ACJ 66 : 1986 ACC 495, the deceased ...
Autolec Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT211TriDel
The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of various automobile parts. They imported 'Counterface Seals' made out of ceramic. The goods were initially assessed under Notification 117/78 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme and Advance Licensing Scheme. The Department, thereafter, issued an alleged less charge demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act on the ground that the seals made of ceramic are classifiable under Chapter 69 and not under Chapter 84 of the CTA 1975. Therefore, the benefit of Notification under 117/78 would not be available since Chapter 69 is not mentioned in the First Schedule to the said Notification 117/78. Both the lower authorities have found against the appellants and hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The learned Consultant, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, appearing for the appellants has urged that it is not denied that the ceramic seals are component parts to be used in the manufacture of water pumps assembly, which is exported outside th...
L'Avanir Telecoms Ltd. Vs. Collector Of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC566Tri(Delhi)
1. L'Avanir Telecoms Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 3rd December, 1990. Simultaneously, a stay application duly verified and sworn before an Oath Commissioner was also filed. Shri Ashok Srivastava, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants and pleaded that the applicants are manufacturing telephone instruments and had imported capital equipment for setting up the plant and had claimed assessment under Heading 98.01 under the project import and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 315/83 dated 26th November, 1983 as amended from time to time. Shri Srivastava argued that initial raw materials have to be 10% of the total value of the project and have to be allowed under the project import adding concessional rate of duty. He pleaded that the duty of Rs. 58,27,054.00 is differential duty on account of denial of the project import and the appellant...
Autolac Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT451TriDel
The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of various automobile parts. They imported 'Counterface Seals' made out of ceramic. The goods were initially assessed under Notification 117/78 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme and Advance Licensing Scheme. The Department, thereafter, issued an alleged less charge demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act on the ground that the seals made of ceramic are classifiable under Chapter 69 and not under Chapter 84 of the CTA 1975. Therefore, the benefit of Notification under 111/78 would not be available since Chapter 69 is not mentioned in the First Schedule to the said Notification 117/78. Both the lower authorities have found against the appellants and hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The learned Consultant, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, appearing for the appellants has urged that it is not denied that the ceramic seals are component parts to be used in the manufacture of water pumps assembly, which is exported outside th...
Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi105; ILR1991Delhi491
ORDERJaspal Singh, J.1. T. Shaffer in his On being a Christian and a Lawyer (198 1) paints a devastating picture of the instruction, regulation, and practice of law in the law schools. Had he known that even in the matter of admission to law schools, the picture is not less dismal, we feel sure, almost, that be would have constructed a mental cloister and retreated into it, but not before proclaiming, in utter despair, Gold has rusted. This writ petition presents that sad spectacle. However, first a brief resume.of the backdrop, the same being essential for the ascertainment of both truth and justice.2. University of Delhi (hereinafter called the University) has number of colleges affiliated to it. It has also various Faculties like faculties of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Education, Mathematical Sciences, Management Studies and Law. The Faculty of Law has three Centres, namely, (1) Campus Law Centre, (ii) Law Centre- I and (iii) Law Centre 11. These Centres offer LL.B. (six terms)...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rathi Udyog Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR612(Delhi)
ORDER--Interest on additional demand of sales-tax--No demand of interest--Question of deductibility not a question arising out of Tribunal's order.HELD :The Tribunal having held that the contention had neither been raised nor dealt with by it, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy that a contention had been raised. In the absence of such an averment, it has to be accepted that the petitioner did not raise the contention before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the question of law did not arise from its order.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the interest of Rs. 71,434 on the additional demand of sales tax may be allowed to the assessed by ignoring the material fact that there was no demand in respect of this interest from the Sale...
State Through Center Bureau of Investigation Vs. Chandraswamy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT579
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this application a prayer has been made by the C.B.L for modification of the order dated 17.12.1990 of Chawla, J, thereby confirming the interim bail order relating to Chandraswamy-respondent and it has been further requested that the conditions as imposed on co. accused K.N. Aggarwal may also be ordered to be imposed on the respondent. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this application are as under: ON25th of May, 1990FIR/Crim. No. 1 (SIG)(S)/90 was registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment for the offences under section 120-B.I.P.C. read with Sections 182/193/218/465/469/ 471 and 500 Indian Penal Code . and substantive offences under Sections 182/193/ 218/465/469/471/500 Indian Penal Code .-Six persons were named as accused including Chandraswamy-respondent and K.N. Aggarwal alias Mama Ji.(3) On a petition being Crl. M. (M) 2683/90 moved by Chandraswamy, respondent an order was passed on 23.11.90 to the effect that the petition...
Indian Airlines Vs. Aruna Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: I(1991)ACC690; 1992ACJ61; 44(1991)DLT162; [1991(63)FLR232]; (1995)IIILLJ210Del
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.10.89 of the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Delhi by which he awarded Rs. 72,548.00 plus Rs. 5,000.00 as penalty and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment. (2) Since the appeal can be disposed off on a preliminary point, thereforee, I need not discuss the merits of the appeal as also the point whether delay in filing the appeal should be condoned or not. (3) The appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum. Under sub clause (c) rule (1) of that Section, there has to be an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a decease...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »